Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:42:08 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD-current users) Subject: Re: Good name for a dump(8) option? Message-ID: <Mutt.19970201184208.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970201180852.1050B-100000@totum.plaut.de>; from Michael Reifenberger on Feb 1, 1997 18:12:34 %2B0100 References: <19234.854813398@time.cdrom.com> <Pine.BSF.3.95.970201180852.1050B-100000@totum.plaut.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Michael Reifenberger wrote: > > How about a tape length of -1 for the existing option? :-) > > Wouldn't the -1 cause YetAnotherOption? > Should't it be a size of 0 instead? I think i tried to use this approach first, but eventually gave up since it would have required revamping the entire logic. So either we can settle for an option, or i'm not willing to do the work. (Note that i've got these changes ready to commit already, and run them locally for quite some time now. I'm not asking for more work. :-) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970201184208.j>